I disagree. JavaScript historically has always offered backward compatibility.

> Backwards compatibility is important because of the large number of browsers deployed and the wide variety of versions of those browsers [0]. This may be the reasoning behind offering backwards compatibility.

Also, according to the GitHub page [1] the fallbacks are WebGL2, and WebGL 1, and if neither of those work, only then will it use the CPU when in the browser. I find this to be quite acceptable. After all, it is JavaScript!

[0] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4937245/why-is-javascrip... [1] https://github.com/gpujs/gpu.js/wiki/Quick-Concepts#fallback